Are You Atheist or Agnostic
- Thread starter Schizo
- Start date
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's a question of how one evaluates the evidence. There is no objective evidence for god, so I reject the idea. An agnostic has no evidence; he merely allows the chance that a god may exist. The problem here is that one can allow the possibility ofanything existing.
Most athists would change their stance if compelling evidence came to light.
I say yes. If you reject God, you cannot grant him possibility.
I was an atheist by the time I was about 14-15 years old, but called myself an agnostic. When I was about 21-22, I read a quip like the following:
The religious conditioning imposed on a child by family, teachers, older friends, et cetera is formidable and has lasting effects. Before I was a teenager, I was a non-conformist on many other issues, but avoided disclosing my views on religion, except when directly questioned.
After reading the above quip, I realized that childhood conditioning had a strong effect on me. From that time on, I realized that I was an atheist and stoped calling my self an agnostic. I empathize with cowardly atheists who call themselves agnostics. For about ten years, I did not admit to myself that I was an atheist.
From that time forward, I viewed myself as an atheist, and considered agnostics to be afraid to admit to themselves or anyone else that they really are atheists.
The religious conditioning imposed on a child by family, teachers, older friends, et cetera is formidable and has lasting effects. Before I was a teenager, I was a non-conformist on many other issues, but avoided disclosing my views on religion, except when directly questioned.
After reading the above quip, I realized that childhood conditioning had a strong effect on me. From that time on, I realized that I was an atheist and stoped calling my self an agnostic. I empathize with cowardly atheists who call themselves agnostics. For about ten years, I did not admit to myself that I was an atheist.
The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
I am an Agnostic Atheist.
I am atheist because I do not hold the theistic belief that God exists.
I am agnostic because I do not have any personal knowledge/evidence of God. Yes, God might exist (although unlikely within our Universe - and knowledge/evidence of anything not within our universe is impossible.
Atheism is NOT rejecting God as in "I hold the belief that God does not exist" but in "I do not hold the belief that God exists".
Some atheists go so far as to have the belief that God does not exist - but that is not the requirement to be atheist, which is merely to not hold the belief that God exists.
If you can not see the difference between two positions ("not believing X" and "believing not-X") then you will struggle in any discussion where you are making assumptions about atheism.
I am an Agnostic Atheist.
I am atheist because I do not hold the theistic belief that God exists.
I am agnostic because I do not have any personal knowledge/evidence of God. Yes, God might exist (although unlikely within our Universe - and knowledge/evidence of anything not within our universe is impossible.
Atheism is NOT rejecting God as in "I hold the belief that God does not exist" but in "I do not hold the belief that God exists".
Some atheists go so far as to have the belief that God does not exist - but that is not the requirement to be atheist, which is merely to not hold the belief that God exists.
If you can not see the difference between two positions ("not believing X" and "believing not-X") then you will struggle in any discussion where you are making assumptions about atheism.
Unfortunately the person making such a quip as influenced you did not understand what agnosticism actually is.
Atheism: stance on the belief in the existence of God - you either have it or you don't.
Agnosticism: stance on the epistemology of God - i.e. whether God is knowable, and whether you have knowledge of God.
Agnosticism is NOT: "Ooh, I don't know... I'm not sure... I'll sit on the fence."
You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or a non-agnostic variety of theism/atheism.
I'm not sure you are right on this one because your explanation is philosophical. Most people are not philosophers, in consequence of which they do not make the kind of fine distinctions to which you refer. In my experience, the situation can be explained as follows:
Atheist = there is no god
Agnostic= I don't know either way, but I'm not particularly interested in the question
Theist= it is obvious that god exists.
What is meant by god is a matter of personal interpretation.
Myles: It is important to note that agnosticism means exactly what Sarkus has explained. It is true that the general population - highly uneducated on matters that they simply do not really care about will make the common "agnostic" mistake - but it refers not to "I'm unsure" but is a question of knowledge.
When you hear a theist say "I believe a god exists but that god is beyond human comprehension" he is an agnostic theist because A) He believes in a god/s B) He believes god cannot be known. Likewise when a person says "I don't believe in gods but if there are such entities they are beyond our ability to know", then he is an agnostic atheist because A) He doesn't have a belief in a god/s and B) He believes that if there is such an entity it is beyond our ability to know.
A christian could not typically be an agnostic because they believe that their god is knowable - indeed they make claim to personal relationships.
As for the weak/strong divide.. If you go back through my posts you'll see I have often fought for this distinction but have recently become less inclined to bother. Frankly the way I see it is that if Sarkus says: "I am a weak atheist" and I say "I am a strong atheist" we are both in exactly the same position when it comes to not believing in gods. Can I not believe in them any "stronger" than Sarkus doesn't believe in them?
Its main usage comes down to this thought that the onus would somehow be on you if you assert "gods dont exist" but it wouldn't any more so than it would if you asserted "santa doesn't exist" or "Zeus doesn't exist" and yet we never worry about that regardless to it being possible that it might. All of these things 'don't exist'. No, that is not an absolute - it never can be, but that doesn't - in my estimation - call for a weak/strong divide.. we both know that we're not talking absolutes, perhaps there is a Zeus, but we can comfortably say "Zeus doesn't exist" without ever having the burden of proof - that remains solely with the person making the claim that an 'object' does exist.
To end with a quote from Tremblay:
"I think we should replace the labels “weak” and “strong” atheism with “negative arguments” and “positive arguments”. In essence, all they are, are arguments showing that belief in gods is false or undesirable, and arguments showing that gods do not exist."
Regards,
When you hear a theist say "I believe a god exists but that god is beyond human comprehension" he is an agnostic theist because A) He believes in a god/s B) He believes god cannot be known. Likewise when a person says "I don't believe in gods but if there are such entities they are beyond our ability to know", then he is an agnostic atheist because A) He doesn't have a belief in a god/s and B) He believes that if there is such an entity it is beyond our ability to know.
A christian could not typically be an agnostic because they believe that their god is knowable - indeed they make claim to personal relationships.
As for the weak/strong divide.. If you go back through my posts you'll see I have often fought for this distinction but have recently become less inclined to bother. Frankly the way I see it is that if Sarkus says: "I am a weak atheist" and I say "I am a strong atheist" we are both in exactly the same position when it comes to not believing in gods. Can I not believe in them any "stronger" than Sarkus doesn't believe in them?
Its main usage comes down to this thought that the onus would somehow be on you if you assert "gods dont exist" but it wouldn't any more so than it would if you asserted "santa doesn't exist" or "Zeus doesn't exist" and yet we never worry about that regardless to it being possible that it might. All of these things 'don't exist'. No, that is not an absolute - it never can be, but that doesn't - in my estimation - call for a weak/strong divide.. we both know that we're not talking absolutes, perhaps there is a Zeus, but we can comfortably say "Zeus doesn't exist" without ever having the burden of proof - that remains solely with the person making the claim that an 'object' does exist.
To end with a quote from Tremblay:
"I think we should replace the labels “weak” and “strong” atheism with “negative arguments” and “positive arguments”. In essence, all they are, are arguments showing that belief in gods is false or undesirable, and arguments showing that gods do not exist."
Regards,
Last edited:
Aye but I personally find that problematic. We could also say that the vast majority of the population are under the impression that humans only use 5-10% of their brains. It's complete ignorance that - I contend - needs to be stamped out
I feel the same with 'agnostic'.Regards,
Athism is the belief that no God's are possible. Someone CANNOT be an Agnostic Atheist.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I think it would probably be best if we could somehow throw all these labels and terms out. They only lead to confusion and assumptions. When describing your opinion on god, you should first define "god", then give your specific stance on it. For example:
god = a Supreme Being that created the universe. I do not believe in god because I have experienced no evidence of a supreme being that created the universe. Therefore the probability of such a being existing is infinitesimally small.
All that being said, in normally conversation I get lazy and simply say "I'm an atheist". (BTW Dinosaur, my experience mirrors yours.)
god = a Supreme Being that created the universe. I do not believe in god because I have experienced no evidence of a supreme being that created the universe. Therefore the probability of such a being existing is infinitesimally small.
All that being said, in normally conversation I get lazy and simply say "I'm an atheist". (BTW Dinosaur, my experience mirrors yours.)
I am going to throw in my two sense on the subject matter.... granted we are still at a point in society where people should be free to "choose" what they believe in.
Anyways.... here it goes.
Atheism, to me, is the belief that there is no God or higher power present in the Cosmos, however it is does not take into account that God is also, by my perspective, a governing power; meaning that the words 'governing power' could be applied to intelligent systems that are superior to another. So I have been influenced most by Agnosticism, which to me indicates a knowledge of governing powers.
Of course it is all speculative.... I say tomato you say tomato.......... haha!
Anyways.... here it goes.
Atheism, to me, is the belief that there is no God or higher power present in the Cosmos, however it is does not take into account that God is also, by my perspective, a governing power; meaning that the words 'governing power' could be applied to intelligent systems that are superior to another. So I have been influenced most by Agnosticism, which to me indicates a knowledge of governing powers.
Of course it is all speculative.... I say tomato you say tomato.......... haha!
Atheism, to me, deals with probabilities, not absolutes. If there is only the tiniest possibility that there is a God, that's as good as no God. This is the standard in most of science.
Spidergoat the problem is you cannot determine probabilities with both Nature and "God"; therefore either both are equally improbable or equally probable.
Certainly, you can discredit scripture. For instance, you can study the power of prayer and thus come up with the conclusion that it does not actually have any effect on the physical world. Therefore, you can discredit that "God" has any effect on our physical world.
However, to suggest that our universe was created, regardless of process, by an entity that had the intent of creating our universe, is not an illogical or improbable statement within itself. This statement does not assert the nature or intention of this entity; neither does it assert identity, ability, etc
The reason you can compare the Christian God to the flying spaghetti monster is because both make unreasonable claims. Even if we could prove that our universe was created, how in the world can you asser the nature or intention or identity or ability of this creator? There is absolutely zero evidence as to details of "It","Him", "Her".
However what I am repeatedly trying to say is that the core concept, a Creator, is not, in principle and in and of itself, an illogical statement. Rationality and logics has nothing to do with it, because by using rationality, you come up with the conclusion that it's impossible to know; hence, agnosticism.
Let me elaborate. Firstly, let's say there is a valley. You put a person in this valley. This person has zero knowledge of scientific fact and religion. However, he has all the mathematical and logistic capability of an above average man.
If you were to ask this person to come up with ideas as to how he thinks existence came to be, I guarantee you one of those ideas would be creation, as well as natural beginning. Both are logical and rational, based on what we can observe...which is nothing.
Atheism is the rejection of the concept of God; agnosticism is the viewpoint that "God" is unknowable.
Now, again, remember when I say "Creation" I am NOT referring to Creationism. I am also not asserting that this "Creator" has any ability within our universe, nor that he is magical and omniscient and anything of that nature.
By Creator, I simply mean, one who creates. I am not asserting that this entity created our universe out of thin air. Nor am I asserting morality or Heaven or Hell or angels or any thing of that nature.
Simply, the idea that our universe came to be through the actions of an intelligent entity(s), and was intended, rather than it coming to be without intention (naturally). The trouble is, neither of these claims have evidence and neither of these claims CAN have evidence. Therefore, we rely on logics. And then, the problem is neither of these claims outweigh the other in terms of probability.
Certainly, you can discredit scripture. For instance, you can study the power of prayer and thus come up with the conclusion that it does not actually have any effect on the physical world. Therefore, you can discredit that "God" has any effect on our physical world.
However, to suggest that our universe was created, regardless of process, by an entity that had the intent of creating our universe, is not an illogical or improbable statement within itself. This statement does not assert the nature or intention of this entity; neither does it assert identity, ability, etc
The reason you can compare the Christian God to the flying spaghetti monster is because both make unreasonable claims. Even if we could prove that our universe was created, how in the world can you asser the nature or intention or identity or ability of this creator? There is absolutely zero evidence as to details of "It","Him", "Her".
However what I am repeatedly trying to say is that the core concept, a Creator, is not, in principle and in and of itself, an illogical statement. Rationality and logics has nothing to do with it, because by using rationality, you come up with the conclusion that it's impossible to know; hence, agnosticism.
Let me elaborate. Firstly, let's say there is a valley. You put a person in this valley. This person has zero knowledge of scientific fact and religion. However, he has all the mathematical and logistic capability of an above average man.
If you were to ask this person to come up with ideas as to how he thinks existence came to be, I guarantee you one of those ideas would be creation, as well as natural beginning. Both are logical and rational, based on what we can observe...which is nothing.
Atheism is the rejection of the concept of God; agnosticism is the viewpoint that "God" is unknowable.
Now, again, remember when I say "Creation" I am NOT referring to Creationism. I am also not asserting that this "Creator" has any ability within our universe, nor that he is magical and omniscient and anything of that nature.
By Creator, I simply mean, one who creates. I am not asserting that this entity created our universe out of thin air. Nor am I asserting morality or Heaven or Hell or angels or any thing of that nature.
Simply, the idea that our universe came to be through the actions of an intelligent entity(s), and was intended, rather than it coming to be without intention (naturally). The trouble is, neither of these claims have evidence and neither of these claims CAN have evidence. Therefore, we rely on logics. And then, the problem is neither of these claims outweigh the other in terms of probability.